Chapter
II.—Conduct of the Arians towards the
Nicene Council. Ignorant as well as irreligious to attempt to
reverse an Ecumenical Council: proceedings at Nicæa: Eusebians
then signed what they now complain of: on the unanimity of true
teachers and the process of tradition: changes of the Arians.

And do thou, beloved,
consider whether it be not so. If, the devil having sowed their hearts
with this perverseness760760ἐπισπείραντος
τοῦ
διαβόλου, the allusion is to Matt. xiii.
25,
and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism.
He draws it out at length, Orat. ii. §34. Elsewhere, he
uses the image for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon
Adam’s fall, contr. Apoll. i. §15. as does S.
Irenæus, Hær. iv. 40. n. 3. using it of such as lead
to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. v. 10. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, of
the natural passions and of false reason misleading them, de An. et
Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. c. 2., they feel confidence
in their bad inventions, let them defend themselves against the proofs
of heresy which have been advanced, and then will be the time to find
fault, if they can, with the definition framed against them761761 The
Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions (at the end of
the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the insertion of the
phrases, “of the substance” and “one in
substance.” Athan. says that the Arians must not criticise the
latter before they had cleared themselves of the former. Thus he says
presently, that they were at once irreligious in their faith and
ignorant in their criticism; and speaks of the Council negativing their
formulæ, and substituting those which were “sound and
ecclesiastical.” vid. also n. 4.. For no one, on 152being convicted of murder or adultery, is at
liberty after the trial to arraign the sentence of the judge, why he
spoke in this way and not in that762762 And so
S. Leo “passim” concerning the Council of Chalcedon,
“Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur
in that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever
concerning any retractation,” Ep. 94. He calls such an act
a “magnum sacrilegium,” Ep. 157. c. 3. “To be
seeking for what has been disclosed, to retract what has been
perfected, to tear up what has been laid down (definita), what is this
but to be unthankful for what we gained?” Ep. 162. vid.
the whole of it. He says that the attempt is “no mark of a
peace-maker but a rebel.” Ep. 164. c. l. fin. vid. also
Epp. 145, and 156, where he says, none can assail what is once
determined, but “aut antichristus aut diabolus.” c.
2.. For this does
not exculpate the convict, but rather increases his crime on the score
of petulance and audacity. In like manner, let these either prove that
their sentiments are religious (for they were then accused and
convicted, and their complaints are subsequent, and it is just that
those who are under a charge should confine themselves to their own
defence), or if they have an unclean conscience, and are aware of their
own irreligion, let them not complain of what they do not understand,
or they will bring on themselves a double imputation, of irreligion and
of ignorance. Rather let them investigate the matter in a docile
spirit, and learning what hitherto they have not known, cleanse their
irreligious ears with the spring of truth and the doctrines of
religion763763 Vid.
Orat. iii. §28..

3. Now it happened to Eusebius and his fellows in
the Nicene Council as follows:—while they stood out in their
irreligion, and attempted their fight against God764764θεομαχεῖν,
θεομάχοι. vid. Acts v. 39; xxiii. 9. are of very frequent
use in Athan. as is χριστομάχοι, in speaking of the Arians, vid. infra passim.
also ἀντιμαχόμενοι
τῷ σωτῆρι, Ep. Encycl. §5. And in the beginning of the
controversy, Alexander ap. Socr. i. 6. p. 10. b.c.p. 12. p. 13.
Theod. Hist. i. 3. p. 729. And so θεομάχος
γλῶσσα, Basil.
contr. Eunom. ii. 27. fin. χριστομάχων. Ep. 236. init. vid. also Cyril (Thesaurus, p. 19
e. p. 24 e.). θεομάχοι is used of other heretics, e.g. the Manichees, by Greg. Naz.
Orat. 45. §8.,
the terms they used were replete with irreligion; but the assembled
Bishops who were three hundred more or less, mildly and charitably
required of them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds.
Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned765765 i.e.
“convicted themselves,” infr. §18. init.
ἑαυτῶν ἀεὶ
κατήγοροι, ad. Ep. Æg. §6. i.e. by their variations,
vid. Tit. iii. 11αὐτοκατάκριτος, and one differed from another; then
perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb,
and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their
heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had
invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith;
and, as all subscribed it, Eusebius and his fellows subscribed it also
in those very words, of which they are now complaining, I mean,
“of the essence” and “one in essence,” and that
“the Son of God is neither creature or work, nor in the number of
things originated766766γενητῶν., but that the Word is
an offspring from the substance of the Father.” And what is
strange indeed, Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, who had denied
the day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to his Church a letter,
saying that this was the Church’s faith, and the tradition of the
Fathers; and made a public profession that they were before in error,
and were rashly contending against the truth. For though he was ashamed
at that time to adopt these phrases, and excused himself to the Church
in his own way, yet he certainly means to imply all this in his
Epistle, by his not denying the “one in essence,” and
“of the essence.” And in this way he got into a difficulty;
for while he was excusing himself, he went on to attack the Arians, as
stating that “the Son was not before His generation,” and
as thereby rejecting His existence before His birth in the flesh. And
this Acacius is aware of also, though he too through fear may pretend
otherwise because of the times and deny the fact. Accordingly I have
subjoined at the end the letter of Eusebius, that thou mayest know from
it the disrespect towards their own doctors shewn by Christ’s
enemies, and singularly by Acacius himself767767 The
party he is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he does not seem to
have had much distinct knowledge. He contrasts them again and again in
the passages which follow with the Eusebians of the Nicene Council, and
says that he is sure that the ground they take when examined will be
found substantially the same as the Eusebian. vid. §6 init. et
alib. §7. init. §9. circ. fin. §10.
circ. fin. §13. init. τότε καὶ
νῦν. §18. circ.
fin. §28. fin [On Acacius see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8
(2) b.].

4. Are they not then committing a crime, in their
very thought to gainsay so great and ecumenical a Council? are they not
in transgression, when they dare to confront that good definition
against Arianism, acknowledged, as it is, by those who had in the first
instance taught them irreligion? And supposing, even after
subscription, Eusebius and his fellows did change again, and return
like dogs to their own vomit of irreligion, do not the present
gain-sayers deserve still greater detestation, because they thus
sacrifice768768προπίνοντες
vid. de Syn. §14. their souls’ liberty to others;
and are willing to take these persons as masters of their heresy, who
are, as James769769James i. 8. has said, double-minded men, and
unstable in all their ways, not having one opinion, but changing to and
fro, and now recommending certain statements, but soon dishonouring
them, and in turn recommending what just now they were blaming? But
this, as the 153Shepherd has said, is
“the child of the devil770770 Hermas,
Mand. ix., who is speaking immediately, as S. James, of wavering
in prayer.,” and the note
of hucksters rather than of doctors. For, what our Fathers have
delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of
doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither
from themselves nor from their fathers; whereas they who have not this
character are to be called not true doctors but evil. Thus the Greeks,
as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarrelling one with
another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable heralds
of the truth agree together, and do not differ. For though they lived
in different times, yet they one and all tend the same way, being
prophets of the one God, and preaching the same Word harmoniously771771 Thus S.
Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, “We have not the task
of refuting their tenets, for they suffice for the overthrow of each
other.” Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Græc.
Affect. i. p. 707. &c. August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and
Vincentius’s celebrated Commonitorium passim..

5. And thus what Moses taught, that Abraham
observed; and what Abraham observed, that Noah and Enoch acknowledged,
discriminating pure from impure, and becoming acceptable to God. For
Abel too in this way witnessed, knowing what he had learned from Adam,
who himself had learned from that Lord, who said, when He came at the
end of the ages for the abolishment of sin, “I give no new
commandment unto you, but an old commandment, which ye have heard from
the beginning7727721 John ii. 7..” Wherefore also the blessed
Apostle Paul, who had learned it from Him, when describing
ecclesiastical functions, forbade that deacons, not to say bishops,
should be double-tongued7737731 Tim. iii. 8.; and in his rebuke of
the Galatians, he made a broad declaration, “If anyone preach any
other Gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be anathema,
as I have said, so say I again. If even we, or an Angel from heaven
should preach unto you any other Gospel than that ye have received, let
him be anathema774774Gal. i. 8, 9..” Since then
the Apostle thus speaks, let these men either anathematise Eusebius and
his fellows, at least as changing round and professing what is contrary
to their subscriptions; or, if they acknowledge that their
subscriptions were good, let them not utter complaints against so great
a Council. But if they do neither the one nor the other, they are
themselves too plainly the sport of every wind and surge, and are
influenced by opinions, not their own, but of others, and being such,
are as little worthy of deference now as before, in what they allege.
Rather let them cease to carp at what they understand not; lest so be
that not knowing to discriminate, they simply call evil good and good
evil, and think that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. Doubtless,
they desire that doctrines which have been judged wrong and have been
reprobated should gain the ascendancy, and they make violent efforts to
prejudice what was rightly defined. Nor should there be any reason on
our part for any further explanation, or answer to their excuses,
neither on theirs for further resistance, but for an acquiescence in
what the leaders of their heresy subscribed; for though the subsequent
change of Eusebius and his fellows was suspicious and immoral, their
subscription, when they had the opportunity of at least some little
defence of themselves, is a certain proof of the irreligion of their
doctrine. For they would not have subscribed previously had they not
condemned the heresy, nor would they have condemned it, had they not
been encompassed with difficulty and shame; so that to change back
again is a proof of their contentious zeal for irreligion. These men
also ought therefore, as I have said, to keep quiet; but since from an
extraordinary want of modesty, they hope perhaps to be able to advocate
this diabolical775775 This is
Athan.’s deliberate judgment. vid. de Sent. Dion. fin.,
ib. §24. he speaks of Arius’s “hatred of the
truth.” Again, “though the diabolical men rave”
Orat. iii. §8. “friends of the devil, and his
spirits,” Ad Ep. Æg. 5. Another reason of his so
accounting them, was their atrocious cruelty towards Catholics; this
leads him elsewhere to break out: “O new heresy, that has put on
the whole devil in irreligious doctrine and conduct!”
Hist. Arian. §66, also Alexander, ‘diabolical,’
ap Theod. Hist. i. 3, p. 731. ‘satanical,’ ibid. p.
741. vid. also Socr. i. 9. p. 30 fin. Hilar. contr. Const.
17. irreligion better
than the others, therefore, though in my former letter written to thee,
I have already argued at length against them, notwithstanding, come let
us now also examine them, in each of their separate statements, as
their predecessors; for now not less than then their heresy shall be
shewn to have no soundness in it, but to be from evil spirits.

760ἐπισπείραντος
τοῦ
διαβόλου, the allusion is to Matt. xiii.
25,
and is very frequent in Athan., chiefly with a reference to Arianism.
He draws it out at length, Orat. ii. §34. Elsewhere, he
uses the image for the evil influences introduced into the soul upon
Adam’s fall, contr. Apoll. i. §15. as does S.
Irenæus, Hær. iv. 40. n. 3. using it of such as lead
to back-sliding in Christians. ibid. v. 10. n. 1. Gregory Nyssen, of
the natural passions and of false reason misleading them, de An. et
Resurr. p. 640. vid. also Leon. Ep. 156. c. 2.

761 The
Council did two things, anathematise the Arian positions (at the end of
the Creed), and establish the true doctrine by the insertion of the
phrases, “of the substance” and “one in
substance.” Athan. says that the Arians must not criticise the
latter before they had cleared themselves of the former. Thus he says
presently, that they were at once irreligious in their faith and
ignorant in their criticism; and speaks of the Council negativing their
formulæ, and substituting those which were “sound and
ecclesiastical.” vid. also n. 4.

762 And so
S. Leo “passim” concerning the Council of Chalcedon,
“Concord will be easily established, if the hearts of all concur
in that faith which, &c., no discussion being allowed whatever
concerning any retractation,” Ep. 94. He calls such an act
a “magnum sacrilegium,” Ep. 157. c. 3. “To be
seeking for what has been disclosed, to retract what has been
perfected, to tear up what has been laid down (definita), what is this
but to be unthankful for what we gained?” Ep. 162. vid.
the whole of it. He says that the attempt is “no mark of a
peace-maker but a rebel.” Ep. 164. c. l. fin. vid. also
Epp. 145, and 156, where he says, none can assail what is once
determined, but “aut antichristus aut diabolus.” c.
2.

767 The
party he is writing against is the Acacian, of whom he does not seem to
have had much distinct knowledge. He contrasts them again and again in
the passages which follow with the Eusebians of the Nicene Council, and
says that he is sure that the ground they take when examined will be
found substantially the same as the Eusebian. vid. §6 init. et
alib. §7. init. §9. circ. fin. §10.
circ. fin. §13. init. τότε καὶ
νῦν. §18. circ.
fin. §28. fin [On Acacius see Prolegg. ch. ii. §8
(2) b.]

770 Hermas,
Mand. ix., who is speaking immediately, as S. James, of wavering
in prayer.

771 Thus S.
Basil says the same of the Grecian Sects, “We have not the task
of refuting their tenets, for they suffice for the overthrow of each
other.” Hexaem. i. 2. vid. also Theod. Græc.
Affect. i. p. 707. &c. August. Civ. Dei, xviii. 41. and
Vincentius’s celebrated Commonitorium passim.